News:

Your username and password for these discussion forums are unique to the forums. Your forum login information is separate from your My Adventure Cycling login information, and your login info for the Cyclosource online store. You will need to create a separate login for each of these. However, to make things a bit easier, you can use the same email and password for all three accounts. Also, please note that your login information for the forums is not connected to your Adventure Cycling membership number. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.

We have blocked registrations from several countries because of the large quantities of spam that originate there. If the forum denies your legitimate registration, please ask our administrator for an exception. webmaster@adventurecycling.org will need your IP address, which you can find at many web sites, including http://whatismyipaddress.com.

How small are you thinking? Especially if you are going with a small sensor, I'd rethink the 12MP requirement. The number of MP is seldom the limiting factor wrt image quality. In fact too many megapixels causes high noise levels which degrades the picture if the sensor is too small. With a bigger DSLR with a large sensor you may actually be able to take advantage of 12 megapixels, but it will be heavy.

I'd also skip the waterproof requirement. Non waterproof cameras can typically work well in most touring conditions with a little care.

Personally If I were buying for a tour today I would be very tempted with the Nikon Coolpix 7000. I had a chance to handle the one I gave my daughter for her birthday and it is a very impressive camera.

dpreview.com seems to be the major source of camera facts and reviews. Spend a lot of time there.

Note that the megapixel count is one of the least important specifications of a camera, and most cameras have other limitations in the lens and other parts that make them unworthy of their megapixel count. Blooming, purple fringing, chromatic aberation, or a lens that simply doesn't focus well enough are among the things may make a lousy camera out of one with oodles of megapixels. staehpj1 has a good point about the noise on high-megapixel-count cameras too, especially with small sensors and low light. Most of your pictures will get reduced to 0.25 to 0.5 megapixels for websites and blogs and emailing anyway.

You might want to limit the selection to cameras that can use alkaline AA batteries. Proprietary rechargeable batteries could be a problem, especially since they require carrying the charger and you won't always have access to plug-in power.

I would want something very small, thin, and light that I can comfortably carry in my jersey pocket. If you can't get to it easily, you won't use it.

dpreview.com seems to be the major source of camera facts and reviews. Spend a lot of time there.You might want to limit the selection to cameras that can use alkaline AA batteries. Proprietary rechargeable batteries could be a problem, especially since they require carrying the charger and you won't always have access to plug-in power.

On batteries... I am inclined to buy a camera with a rechargeable lithium battery. I then buy one or more spares AND a smaller lighter weight aftermarket charger. The batteries from the camera manufacturer are typically pretty expensive, but I have usually found aftermarket ones for a fraction of the cost.

I used to be pretty heavy into SLR photography, but switched a couple years ago to the Canon G-series of "pro-sumer" compact cameras. After a week in Japan with the G10 coming and going everywhere with me, I promptly sold all of my SLR equipment.

The G-series isn't terribly small or compact, but it's still half the size of a DSLR and the image quality and versatility is unlike anything I've seen in a compact. I highly recommend that line of camera.

They work, but they are heavy, expensive, prone to failure from frequent flexing as they are rolled and unrolled, and slow to charge the AA batteries common in cameras and GPS receivers. They do better with the small batteries in cell phones. Their trickle charge does not fully charge NiMH cells, the most common chemistry in rechargeable AAs.

Some people swear by them, but I prefer a compact mains charger built for NiMH chemistry. With four high-quality rechargeable AAs, I need to reach an outlet only every two - four weeks, depending on how much use the camera gets. When my GPSR is along, it's six AAs and get to an outlet once a week.

I have the Panasonic Lumix DMC - FT2 waterproof camera. Now also carry a G2 !

The FT2 is easy to use single handed while riding and takes good quality pictures: the ones on my little website for the Amsterdam trip were all taken with the Lumix FT2. It has a self timer of 10 seconds but no remote control.

the question comes up often, you can search for lots of comments and recommendations although specific models changes too rapidly to be meaningful.

Go shoping with your bike gloves and your sunglasses. My comments about bike touring cameras come down to: 1. You must like the software. If you can't talk to the camera, none of its expensive features were worth what you paid. 2. You must be able to use the controls. Can you work the camera with your bike gloves?or sunglasses? 3. Can you get batteries for it on the road or charge it?4. Have a safety lanyard. I've seen people go down trying to catch a fumbled camera while riding. Camera and bike and rider all got banged up. 5. Get a protective case. 6. What will you do with the image files? An offloader? If you put an 8G card in the thing and store two months' worth of photos and someone steals your camera your vacation is gone. 7. Waterproof is unnecessary unless you're a diver.8. 12mp is unnecessary. 90% of your images will be emailed or uploaded as wee jpgs. 9. Don't buy anything you can't afford to lose, break, or have stolen. It's not jewelry, it's just a camera. Good glass is more important than sensor density. 10. Remote? All you need is a self timer.

Want to have a blast on your trip and get take snapshots (maybe not great photographs) and never worry about your camera? Buy a couple of prepaid/disposable film cameras.

Go shoping with your bike gloves and your sunglasses. My comments about bike touring cameras come down to: 1. You must like the software. If you can't talk to the camera, none of its expensive features were worth what you paid. 2. You must be able to use the controls. Can you work the camera with your bike gloves?or sunglasses? 3. Can you get batteries for it on the road or charge it?4. Have a safety lanyard. I've seen people go down trying to catch a fumbled camera while riding. Camera and bike and rider all got banged up. 5. Get a protective case. 6. What will you do with the image files? An offloader? If you put an 8G card in the thing and store two months' worth of photos and someone steals your camera your vacation is gone. 7. Waterproof is unnecessary unless you're a diver.8. 12mp is unnecessary. 90% of your images will be emailed or uploaded as wee jpgs. 9. Don't buy anything you can't afford to lose, break, or have stolen. It's not jewelry, it's just a camera. Good glass is more important than sensor density. 10. Remote? All you need is a self timer.

That all makes a lot of sense, although I realize I didn't mention the reason for the photos in the first place. I do hope to get nice photos that I would then design into a book (I am a graphic designer). Also, the reason for the higher MP is for upload onto a site called iStockPhoto.com, which has a high standard. I don't think the Pn'S are up to par with what I am looking for.

Now the question for me is whether I want to add my photography hobby and idea for a book to my trip. I did read the "photography and biking do they mix" thread and so it causes questions for me.

I am finding there are endless questions that need to be answered for cross country trip like this. My goal is not to get to the other side, but to enjoy everything inbetween, plus there is no time limit for me at this point in my life so that is what makes me think of adding a hobby like photography to the trip. SO many questions!! But I still have 4 months to answer them.

I still have 2MP, 3.2MP, 6MP, and 12MP cameras. I have produced stunning 8x10 images from a 2MP camera. Lately I have been carrying the 3.2MP camera because it has wide angle capability. Anyone who tells you that you need 12MP to make good images is full of it. As has been previously stated, it is the qualilty of the lens and not the sensor that matters.

Many years ago, I took a photography class from a noted freelancer in the Detroit area, back in the film era. He told us that we had to shoot Kodachrome. Kodachrome does a nice job with skin tones, but I always liked the look of Ektachrome for landscapes. When we turned in our portfolios at the end, I compliments from him on my work. He never picked up on the fact that most of it was shot with the coarser grained Extachrome and not the finer grained Kodachrome.

Moral of the story, in case you missed it, is that it is all about the image and not the technology that you used to make the image.

I realize I didn't mention the reason for the photos in the first place. I do hope to get nice photos that I would then design into a book (I am a graphic designer). Also, the reason for the higher MP is for upload onto a site called iStockPhoto.com, which has a high standard. I don't think the Pn'S are up to par with what I am looking for.

The problem with many point-and-shoots (if that's what you mean) is not that they lack megapixels, but that their lens quality, electronic noise, blooming, and other factors make them unworthy of anywhere near as many megapixels as they have. IOW, you could get a sharper, higher-quality picture with fewer MP if the other factors were up to snuff. It's market-driven though. The MP count has been hyped so much that that's what manufacurers deliver, cutting corners on more-important factors in order to deliver so many MP at a competitive price.

You also don't need anywhere near 12MP for pictures to put in a nice book. You could go with a high-quality, big, heavy DSLR and get 24MP or more, but I think carrying it would be a pain, and you'll miss a lot of pictures because you get so tired of getting it out and putting it away, instead of having something you can keep in your jersey pocket. I have been impressed with our son's Canon PowerShot A2000IS which he bought two years ago. My wife has an A550 which I bought about a year earlier and was good, but our son's A2000IS is quite a bit better and yet less expensive.

That all makes a lot of sense, although I realize I didn't mention the reason for the photos in the first place. I do hope to get nice photos that I would then design into a book (I am a graphic designer). Also, the reason for the higher MP is for upload onto a site called iStockPhoto.com, which has a high standard. I don't think the Pn'S are up to par with what I am looking for.

Now the question for me is whether I want to add my photography hobby and idea for a book to my trip. I did read the "photography and biking do they mix" thread and so it causes questions for me.

I am finding there are endless questions that need to be answered for cross country trip like this. My goal is not to get to the other side, but to enjoy everything inbetween, plus there is no time limit for me at this point in my life so that is what makes me think of adding a hobby like photography to the trip. SO many questions!! But I still have 4 months to answer them.

I just had a look at their site and the final picture requirements are actually easily met - RGB J Peg at 1600+1200 pixels. The problem is that they suggest taking your original picture with an SLR in RAW format and editing it as a 16 bit Tiff file, and then save it down to a 8 bit J Peg. This makes more sense because if you start editing a 8 bit JPEG you can end up with an over edited image that can be a mess when enlarged.Perhaps a DSLR that shoots RAW would be a better option ? They are not massively expensive but you loose the "Compact" advantage. Maybe the Cannon G series as mentioned previously would suite your needs ?